Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm not ok with it. Priests or deacons should be the stewards of the Eucharist bringing it to the faithful. Clergy. Period. In the early Church that was something deacons did as well as priests, but not lay folks.
What do you think of receiving communion from a lay person. The RC church up the street has a lay person making house calls to offer communion. He says he was authorized by the church to do this.
Beat me to it. Plus Priest and Bishops don't call. Lay people volunteer, and if there is a need, assignments are made. And most are permanent. And Level 2 EMHC is required to take Communion to the sick, home bound.
I was asked by my priest. And I'm pretty good at it from what I hear.Beat me to it. Plus Priest and Bishops don't call. Lay people volunteer, and if there is a need, assignments are made. And most are permanent. And Level 2 EMHC is required to take Communion to the sick, home bound.
MikeK said:Neat, I was just wondering what people who aren't members of Christ's One True Church thought of its practices. How helpful.
All who have been validly Baptized are members of Christ's One True Church.
Additionally, Gurney's Church has a true Eucharist. As such, his (and their) opinion on Eucharistic practices are valuable. Nevermind the fact that in the Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome also forbid anyone but the Ordained from handling the Eucharist, in accordance with the same ancient traditions of the Orthodox and, until recently, the Roman Church.
MikeK said:All that have been validly baptized are Christian, but not all Christians are members of Christ's one true Church.
Christ founded but one Church, and He founded it on Peter, the rock, the first Pope, who's throne is occupied today by Peter's successor as appointed by the Holy Spirit, Pope Francis. Good Pope Boniface VIII explained rather plainly that the Orthodox are not Christ's sheep.
It probably isn't their fault that they've been duped, and it seems quite likely that many of them will obtain salvation through the Catholic Church (Christ's Church). That they have a valid Eucharist is a sign of the Lord's mercy for their poor souls. That they share some practices with Eastern Catholics who are not apostates means little.
No non-Catholic should be opining negatively about The Catholic Church in OBOB, an those that do show their character.
Second Phoenix said:Are members of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, albeit impartially because they profess errors.
Wrong, those are not ancient traditions. Eucharistic ministers are going back to the ancient practice of bringing communion.
.You might read up on the Church's theology of Baptism. All who have been validly baptized ARE members of the Catholic Church, even if imperfectly. Otherwise, their Baptism would be meaningless, like that of LDS.
Not sure what Boniface said, but there have been plenty of ecumenically positive statements about the Orthodox Church from the Roman Church and the Popes in the last century. I'll defer to them. Ever hear of the Two Lungs of the Church?
It means quite a bit, actually. Gurney's statement in this thread is the official teaching of the Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with the Pope. To simply dismiss that as heretic blathering is to dismiss a valid and equal tradition within the Church. It's tantamount to saying Latin traditions are superior to Eastern traditions.
Earlier today you stood up for an Anglican who basically did the same thing.
Which is what I said with less nuance.
If the traditions have been around for 1500 or so years, it's not incorrect to call them "ancient traditions". I didn't call them "original traditions" and if you'll reread the thread, you'll see I already mentioned the practice of the persecuted church bringing communion home.
Second Phoenix said:When speaking of truth it is important to be precise, not politically correct.
They are original traditions. EMHCs are a revival of an ancient practice.
According to Dom Gregory Dix it was at one time common to take a tiny part of the Sunday communion bread home to communion from during the week, IIRC.Tallguy88 said:I've read that back during the church of the Roman persecutions, Christians who made it to Mass would take some of the consecrated bread home for their family who couldn't make it to Mass. Being caught with it by the Romans was an automatic death sentence.
Earlier today you stood up for an Anglican who basically did the same thing.
MikeK said:Unless I missed it (and I may have, it was a long thread) that Anglican stopped short of saying that she didn't like the teaching of Christ's one true Church and in fact gave the teaching of the Catholic Church without undue editorialization. PM me the part you found untrue or uncharitable to Catholics and if I agree I'll call her out on it.
As far as Pope Boniface VII, and as far as two lungs go - there may be two lungs, but:
"Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster." - Unam Sanctum
The same bull closes with "we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Unam Sanctam
Ah. Unam Sanctam. Like I said, I'll trust the statements and teachings of this century more than ones from the thirteenth century. More refined and with better understanding of the overall situation.
MikeK said:I'm torn on that. While schollars today have far greater access to early Church history than Popes in the 1300s did, those Popes were 700 years closer to Christ and they were witnessing apostasy up close and in real time.
I'm torn on that. While schollars today have far greater access to early Church history than Popes in the 1300s did, those Popes were 700 years closer to Christ and they were witnessing apostasy up close and in real time.
Exactly.Closer to Christ ?
Time frame doesn't make a person closer to Christ, but whether they follow Jesus who is present in their lives.
The corrupt Popes of the past who led armies into wars and used excommunication as a weapon against political adversaries, was hardly Christ like.
Jim
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?